Dishonest Apologetics

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Well… you knew that such previous agreement could not last long…

My intellect says there is almost certainly no God. In order to believe in him, I would need some kind of evidence to make me think that he probably exists.

I am reading a truly inspirational book - that I would like to recommend to you and to all members of the list. “Jesus of Nazareth” by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Ignatius Press, 2007.

Here is a quote that seems to focus on your concern,

“We are dealing here with teh vast question as to how we can and cannot know God, how we are related to God and how we can lose him. The arrogance that would make Godd an object and impose our laboratory conditions upon is incapable of finding him, by discarding the whole dimension of love, of interior listenting; by no longer acknowledging as real anything but what we can experimentally test and grasp. To think like that is to make oneself God. and to do that is to abase not only God, but the world and oneself, too.” (p.37)

You have repeated demonstrated that no ‘proof’ is sufficient for you. God continually falls short of your expectations. OK. As far as I can see you have made up your mind - your free will is in total control of the direction you have chosen and these little items you cast about on with ‘maybes’ and ‘could bes’ just seems to bait others.

Live like you believe - and, I hope we all follow this adage, too! May God have mercy on us all!

God bless

 

[twb1621]

Okay, this just doesn’t mean anything to me because I don’t think God exists.

I understand your comment. As far as it meaning nothing to you it would stand to reason as you have no real knowledge of theology or God, as it is available. If you are not interested in putting the time in to learn, it is your choice to remain naive in His existence. My point is in attempting to bring you to the awareness that the things you place reliability in often have no more support or even less than the kind of “proof” you desire for the existence of God. How many times have we “discovered” this or that only to rediscover a few years later, we were wrong and believed the opposite of what was correct or reality.
Not to seem critical of you but you do in fact put a great deal of stock in mans word in relation to the findings of the “sciences” over the existence of God. Man’s word often even with the support of the sciences and studies are often later found to be wrong. There are some things I understand and once agreed with you but you definitely are selective. Theories are nothing more than man’s acceptance of those things he determines to be probabilities and they mean nothing based on our track record. If you gave the same credence to the possibility of God rather than the unlikeness of God as you currently do in many of the theoretical probabilities and many “discoveries” of man you express, you would be more inclined to find what you are looking for.

Do you know if they back up their claims with a lot of citations to actual evidence? I’ve read a lot of false claims from different religions, and claims that aren’t backed up are pretty meaningless to me.

Not to sound smart but they provide more support than many of the discoveries or theories you currently accept from man sorry to say. Realizing some are false or have doubt, As far as any false claims that you have found, I would certainly like to see the support for any that are accepted by the Catholic Church.

Regarding “Our Lady of Success”, do you know of any compilation of every single prediction that she made? If someone makes a lot of prophecies, you would expect some to come true, and some not to come true.

The only prophecies not revealed are those of which are not to be revealed (by direction of the Holy One declaring the prophecy) until a specified time and it is recorded that way, usually not revealed until the era has arrived. Revelations offers many 2000-year-old historically recorded prophecies that now are sequentially occurring unlike the past claims of some other faiths that mistakenly claim things over and over again wrongfully. Some prophecies are offered as proof of the authenticity of the apparition… Remember that they are made to those of any faith or no faith at all and those with no knowledge of the Holy One of the apparition so you can’t write it off that way. But the prophecies are well recorded historically and proven to be of the era they were received.

“Those of Our Lady of Success” are historically from 400+ years ago referring to the 20th century yet very accurate in the events of the century, as is the case with others. The prophecies are defined in the records and the book I suggested. I know there are resources that have such information and they specify those apparitions which the Catholic Church has accepted, which are pending the completion of the investigation and which have been found not acceptable, but I do not have those sources at this time.

I don’t know what you mean by your “track record”. I don’t think I’m selectively choosing at all. When something is a radical departure from well evidenced theories, I think it is reasonable to want a decent amount of evidence. For example, if a New Age believer claimed to be able to levitate tiny objects with their mind, I think I would be justifiably skeptical. Even if I witnessed them doing it, I would be skeptical. There could easily be some magnet hidden within the object, and they could be causing it to move by altering the magnetic field of a nearby magnet. Project Alpha (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha) demonstrated how easy it can be to even fool scientists into thinking that paranormal phenomena were real.

Our “track record”… the frequency our discoveries findings and inventions later prove to be far from accurate or turn out to be detrimental to life in some way. I know you don’t think you are selective but you are. Think about some of the support you offered in regard to your position and read over the theoretical pros and cons you posted for your beliefs and disbeliefs throughout this thread. Your skepticism is normal and we all including the CC possess skepticism without proof. But the support for the existence of God is there but you can’t know it if you don’t want to invest the time to learn.
continued…

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post…

“It also takes quite a lot for physicists to accept something that goes against current theories because the physical laws are so well established and have repeatedly held up to scrutiny. While social scientists accept something as evidence with a p-value of .05, physicists will typically require a p-value of .0001 in order to consider something as evidence that current theories are wrong. And physicists would probably test it again several more times just to be sure. I think this is wise; it should take a lot of evidence to overturn a well established principle of physics.”

I agree 1000% and you just supported what I said about the importance of those physicists who are more and more returning to the theory of a supernatural intelligent being as the Creator of the universe. One such physicist who USE to be Atheist is Stephen Hawking.

“With historical claims as well, I think it’s reasonable to disbelieve a stupendous claim unless there is really good evidence. I don’t think that the evidence for Christianity comes close to meeting this standard.”

Sometimes evidence can bring about conviction even though circumstantial when enough exists.

"I have sought him. I will not waste huge amounts of time seeking him because I think the chances that he exists are exceedingly low. I mean, if someone told you that you had to actively seek a relationship with Zeus, would you?

I bet if you thought about it, you would find things you DO waste a good deal of time with that would be less important to you than your eternal salvation if you did believe in God… Just out of curiosity, where have you searched or I should say researched? Although you may feel you have looked enough, I am sure you haven’t gone deeply enough or cross checked the many resources including documentation of Roman origin or even gave due consideration to all the circumstances involved

 

[twb1621]

My intellect says there is almost certainly no God. In order to believe in him, I would need some kind of evidence to make me think that he probably exists.

There is an old expression that states; “you can’t see the forest for the trees”.
The intellect you refer to as yours is “the trees” in this case. Think about it. If even remotely you may (and you will) be confronted with judgment one day, would it be a waste of time to invest time now into truly learning?

 

[teak421]

My intellect says there is almost certainly no God. In order to believe in him, I would need some kind of evidence to make me think that he probably exists.

Mr. evil.

Don’t quite understand your type… You claim there is no God, but you sure do spend a lot of time talking about him. Why not just move on, get a cup of joe and reflect on all things secular.

• Michael

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Mr. evil.

Don’t quite understand your type… You claim there is no God, but you sure do spend a lot of time talking about him. Why not just move on, get a cup of joe and reflect on all things secular.

• Michael

I find it interesting to discuss philosophical matters. I guess maybe I’m just a philosopher at heart. And it hasn’t been a waste of time; I’ve ended up learning quite a lot about a variety of different things.

 

[teak421]

I find it interesting to discuss philosophical matters. I guess maybe I’m just a philosopher at heart. And it hasn’t been a waste of time; I’ve ended up learning quite a lot about a variety of different things.

Whoa! Great response… You just taught me something… namely, don’t assume what people’s motives are. Just assumed you were one of those folks who likes to stir stuff up. Apologize.

• Michael

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Phew! So, if science, which is based on intelligent, intellectual analysis, is ever able to discover the source of intelligent life, you believe that that source will be an unintelligent, unintellectual entity? How in the world would that be possible?

Yes, I believe that intelligent life only exists because there is a universe in which it can exist. So I guess you could call the universe itself “the source”. The reason why it’s possible for intelligence to develop is natural selection. In many situations, intelligence can be a very useful trait, so intelligent beings will have a greater chance of reproducing, and thus beings end up becoming more intelligent over millions and millions of years.

That’s like saying, that a rock can eventually give rise to intelligent life.

The big difference is that a rock can’t join together with other physical compounds to form very primitive cells, and can’t reproduce through natural selection.

 

[joe370]

Hey atheist…

Perhaps we should deal with provable laws, as opposed to unprovable theories, such as the theory of evolution. The first law of thermodynamics may be stated as: “energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” This law does not rule out transformations of energy from one form to another, or even transformations of energy to matter, and the reverse, as according to Einstein’s E=mc2 equation. If it is true, it means that neither energy, nor matter, can be created from nothing. The second law of thermodynamics may be stated as: “In any transformation of energy from one form to another, ‘useful’ energy is lost.” The first law is sometimes stated as “you can’t get something for nothing.” The second law tells us that not only can’t we get something for nothing, but that we always lose in the process. We give up more than we get, energetically speaking.

Thermodynamics deals with the relationship between heat, energy, and work, as you know. The first and second laws of thermodynamics pose serious problems for evolution. The first law of thermodynamics, energy conservation, states that the amount of energy in the universe remains constant; no energy, is now being created or destroyed. This means that if the universe had a beginning, whatever process or act that brought the universe into existence is no longer in operation, and nothing within the universe could have brought the universe into existence, for no energy is being created now, and no energy was created in that first picosecond of the big bang. In other words, the creation process is no longer operating today. Therefore, either the universe is eternal, with no explanation as to what caused this constant energy, or the universe was created in the past; no continuing creative process is still occurring, or did occur, once the big bang occurred.

The second law of thermodynamics is called entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy. Entropy is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, entropy increases.
Though the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, it changes form.

The second law states that when energy changes form it becomes less usable. Therefore, the amount of usable energy in the universe is running out.This means that the day will come when all the energy in the universe will have been used up. What then??? This will be the death of the universe. There must have been a time when all the energy of the universe was usable; this would be the beginning of the universe. In other words, since the universe is going to have an end, it is not eternal. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the universe is eternal. If it is not eternal, then it must have had a beginning. The big bang model and the expansion of the universe also confirm the beginning of the universe. You said that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. That means that the universe was 1 billion years old 13 billion years ago. How old was the universe approximately 14 billion years ago? If the universe is eternal, then we shouldn’t be able to measure it. It should be immeasurable.

If the first law is true, and has always been true, then the universe has always existed. If the second law is true, and has always been true, then if the universe has always existed, by this time, it would have achieved complete entropy. Obviously these statements cannot both true. If they were, the universe would be uninhabitable. How do you explain this? The only explanation is that these 2 laws of thermodynamics haven’t always been true. Why not? One possibility is that there was intervention by a supernatural God, creating something from nothing, in the initial creation of the universe. Another way to say this is: the universe had a absolute beginning; there was a time when it did not exist, at least in its present form, then God brought it into being. It is impossible to prove or disprove this, scientifically. However, it is the only solution to the dilemma, that I can see.

Evolutionist and those who embrace it, such as yourself, face a dilemma. The first and second laws of thermodynamics (as opposed to theories) - together, declare that the universe had a beginning. The evolutionists cannot deny these laws, (as opposed to theories such as evolution) - for they are considered to be the most firmly established laws of modern science. Evolution runs counter to these two laws. When a scientific model contradicts a scientific law, as you have already pointed out, then the model should be abandoned. Since the first and second laws,of thermodynamics as opposed to theories, teach that the universe had a beginning, then something outside the universe must have caused the universe to come into existence, even if we cannot establish what this something was/is. For, from nothing, nothing comes. Therefore, the universe could not have evolved into existence out of nothing. I have heard all of the counter arguments; perhaps you will provide me with an original refutation.

Science confirms that all of the “constant energy” in the the “eternal” universe COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM WITHIN THE “ETERNAL” UNIVERSE, or from nothing. So, if the universe is a closed system, as science suggests, and there was no external power source that was responsible for the big bang, then where did all of this “constant energy” that is transforming into unusable energy, come from?

 

[joe370]

Yes, I believe that intelligent life only exists because there is a universe in which it can exist. So I guess you could call the universe itself “the source”.

**This supposition defies the first 2 laws of thermodynamics.

**
The reason why it’s possible for intelligence to develop is natural selection.

**That is not a reason! Please expound.

**

In many situations, intelligence can be a very useful trait…

**Agreed. **

…so intelligent beings will have a greater chance of reproducing, and thus beings end up becoming more intelligent over millions and millions of years.

**So, given enough time, intelligence can evolve from unintelligence? Proof please!!! I need evidence, just as you do. **

The big difference is that a rock can’t join together with other physical compounds to form very primitive cells, and can’t reproduce through natural selection.

**What can join together with other physical compounds to form very primitive cells, and reproduce through natural selection, and what is the cause???
**

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Of course there are cases of fraud or other explanations unworthy of acceptance as of a supernatural means, you are absolutely right. But I would say you are not looking deeply enough into the prophecies and miracles that have been fulfilled and recognized by the Church. I have gone over them as have many others. I can also tell you the Catholic Church is not one to accept these events lightly in the sense they thoroughly scrutinize and investigate each and every claim brought to them and do not accept any where there could be the result of other than a supernatural sources.

This does not seem true at all. Do you really think that our understanding of medicine and the human body is such that whenever a doctor does not know what the cause of a recovery might be, it must have been supernatural? I don’t think it makes sense to assume that our medical knowledge is perfect. But from what I have read of the doctors at Lourdes, they only assess whether there is a known natural explanation. So even if there was a God, I don’t think all of the claimed miracles would have been actual miracles.

Also, there are cases where the Catholic Church accepts something as a miracle on what seems like very shaky grounds:

The “miracle” used to make Mother Teresa’s case for sainthood was the healing of Monica Besra. The doctor who first diagnosed Monica said that “it is scientifically proven that the tumor that she had was linked to tuberculosis," he said. “And it responded to an anti-tubercular drug.” Another doctor said that the tumor had been caught at an early stage and had “responded to our treatment steadily.” Her husband said that “it is much ado about nothing. My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle.”

Monica’s medical records would allow us to determine whether the accounts of all of these people are correct, or whether it was indeed a miracle. However, those records are missing. According to Monica, Sister Betta of the Missionaries of Charity took them away two years ago. Without these records, it’s impossible to know for sure what happened. But from what I have heard so far, there seems to be plenty of reason to doubt this supposed miracle.

I understand that the Catholic Church has an elaborate process of verifying miracles, but that would require belief that the leaders of the Catholic Church would hold these claims to the highest possible scrutiny. As Catholics, I understand why you would believe that; however, an elaborate process is no evidence of accuracy. Spending time investigating something does not prevent someone from reaching the conclusion one wants to reach, regardless of evidence. If God does not exist, all claimed miracles are false. In this case, the church would still want to elevate people to sainthood (particularly those as well respected as Mother Teresa), so the process would still result in saints despite all of the miracles being false. However, the rigorous process would help ensure that their claimed miracles were less likely to be definitively refuted later. So the process is only evidence for the miracle if you already believe that Catholicism is true.

Here are some links pertaining to the supposed Monica Besra miracle:
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562284/Mother-Teresa-miracle-patient-accuses-nuns.html
cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/17/vatican.teresa/index.html
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,364433,00.html

 

[anEvilAtheist]

There have been times that it was Mary herself who said who she was and told those who witnessed her information the could not have known about her so others who did know could realize her authenticity and it was in fact her.

I haven’t heard of this. Could you point me to the evidence of this?

Are you saying that it is impossible to supportively refute something that was based on fraudulent information for 2000 years or less? You are incorrect on that one. There have been many cases and subjects that have been determined to be wrongfully believed or thought after something through other recorded history or an archeological discovery had been located. I can and have obtained enough to show for me that Islam is false based on the inclusiveness of the history of Christianity and the Old Testament prophecies but that is another subject.

No, I think there can be good evidence against a claim of what happened 2000 years ago, although I don’t think you can prove that something didn’t happen. My point is that just because there is no evidence that contradicts a claim, doesn’t mean it’s true. I could say that 2000 years ago there was a small group of dragons that lived on earth. This is not a claim you could refute, for merely showing that there is no evidence of them in one location does not show my claim to be false. But the mere absence of contradicting evidence does not necessarily give evidence for a claim.

If the Bible had been made up or the heart of Jesus’ life false, there certainly would have been recognition of that long before now because there were too many people to substantiate His life and too many prophecies of His own that have come accurately to life throughout the last 2000 years.

But many people did recognize it. The majority of the Jews, at least in the early years in which they would be better able to verify the claims, did not convert to Christianity. You could say that maybe they did not fairly evaluate the evidence. But then the fact that so many people remained Christian is no indicator that the evidence for it is solid. We would both agree that the evidence for Islam is poor, but people remain Muslim. And Mormonism has grown just as rapidly as Christianity did, even though its beginnings are incredibly dubious.

Again you refer to possibilities without proof but you expect proof from God that he exists.

I don’t expect proof, just something to make me think it is the most likely explanation. If I see a magic trick for which I can think of no possible explanation, I do not assume that it was actually something supernatural. I instead think it is more likely that there’s a natural explanation (even though you could say it’s only a possibility and I have no evidence for it), than that it was supernatural.

I can name many and have provided you links to many physicists who now are leaning to God when once they were atheists.

And I can probably name you even more physicists who once believed in God and are now convinced that he does not exist. The popularity of an idea does to show that it’s true. But if you think it does, you might want to take a look at the study which showed that only 7% of scientists believed in a personal God. I think the best approach is to evaluate the evidence on its own merits.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I understand your comment. As far as it meaning nothing to you it would stand to reason as you have no real knowledge of theology or God, as it is available. If you are not interested in putting the time in to learn, it is your choice to remain naive in His existence.

I am not willing to devote a huge amount of time to something that I think would be a waste of time. And any religion can make a claim like the one you are making. Maybe you only dismiss Islam because you have not studied it enough.

My point is in attempting to bring you to the awareness that the things you place reliability in often have no more support or even less than the kind of “proof” you desire for the existence of God. How many times have we “discovered” this or that only to rediscover a few years later, we were wrong and believed the opposite of what was correct or reality.

I agree. But I think it’s important to factor in the plausibility of a claim. I believe that your name is Tom because that is what it says on your posts, even though I have no good evidence that this is true. But if someone walked up to me on the street and said that Scientology is true, I would not merely take their word for it.

Not to seem critical of you but you do in fact put a great deal of stock in mans word in relation to the findings of the “sciences” over the existence of God. Man’s word often even with the support of the sciences and studies are often later found to be wrong. There are some things I understand and once agreed with you but you definitely are selective. Theories are nothing more than man’s acceptance of those things he determines to be probabilities and they mean nothing based on our track record. If you gave the same credence to the possibility of God rather than the unlikeness of God as you currently do in many of the theoretical probabilities and many “discoveries” of man you express, you would be more inclined to find what you are looking for.

I know scientific theories can later be proven wrong, but so can religious theories. Scientific theories have a far better track record of being right than do religious theories.

The only prophecies not revealed are those of which are not to be revealed (by direction of the Holy One declaring the prophecy) until a specified time and it is recorded that way, usually not revealed until the era has arrived.

I see no reason to assume that this is true (at least for one who is not a Catholic). If the prophecy would be damaging, they might not release it.

Revelations offers many 2000-year-old historically recorded prophecies that now are sequentially occurring unlike the past claims of some other faiths that mistakenly claim things over and over again wrongfully. Some prophecies are offered as proof of the authenticity of the apparition… Remember that they are made to those of any faith or no faith at all and those with no knowledge of the Holy One of the apparition so you can’t write it off that way. But the prophecies are well recorded historically and proven to be of the era they were received.

I find that those prophecies are usually very vague.

I agree 1000% and you just supported what I said about the importance of those physicists who are more and more returning to the theory of a supernatural intelligent being as the Creator of the universe. One such physicist who USE to be Atheist is Stephen Hawking.

I’m curious what sources you’re using. I’ve done a bit of research into Hawking’s religious views, and it seems pretty clear that he is an atheist, or at the very least an agnostic.

I bet if you thought about it, you would find things you DO waste a good deal of time with that would be less important to you than your eternal salvation if you did believe in God… Just out of curiosity, where have you searched or I should say researched? Although you may feel you have looked enough, I am sure you haven’t gone deeply enough or cross checked the many resources including documentation of Roman origin or even gave due consideration to all the circumstances involved

I’m sure that if the God of Catholicism exists, pretty much everything I spend my time on would be less important than trying to find God. But that’s a big ‘if’. If leprechauns exist, then most of what I do would be a worse use of time than following rainbows in order to find pots of gold (I am just using this as an example, not saying it is exactly like Christianity). I am sure my research is far shallower than you think it should be. I have read a lot of arguments from top apologists and theologians, listened to many debates on the existence of God, and read a couple apologetics books. I just don’t see any good way of justifying reading shelves worth of books on a religion that seems extremely unlikely to be true (although I will read some that seem interesting). If anything, I have spent far more time researching Christianity than I have researching other religions. But I don’t think it would be worth it to spend the only life I think I’m ever going to have constantly researching one religion after another when I think they’re all wrong.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

There is an old expression that states; “you can’t see the forest for the trees”.
The intellect you refer to as yours is “the trees” in this case. Think about it. If even remotely you may (and you will) be confronted with judgment one day, would it be a waste of time to invest time now into truly learning?

But what standards would God judge us by? I don’t think we know anything about what God, if he exists, and judged us on our behavior, would want from us. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t investigate religion at all; I think we should. I just can’t justify spending all of the only life I will ever have chasing after something that I think does not exist. And if there was an omnibenevolent God, I do not think he would require people to do this.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

Well… you knew that such previous agreement could not last long…

I am reading a truly inspirational book - that I would like to recommend to you and to all members of the list. “Jesus of Nazareth” by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Ignatius Press, 2007.

Here is a quote that seems to focus on your concern,

“We are dealing here with teh vast question as to how we can and cannot know God, how we are related to God and how we can lose him. The arrogance that would make Godd an object and impose our laboratory conditions upon is incapable of finding him, by discarding the whole dimension of love, of interior listenting; by no longer acknowledging as real anything but what we can experimentally test and grasp. To think like that is to make oneself God. and to do that is to abase not only God, but the world and oneself, too.” (p.37)

You have repeated demonstrated that no ‘proof’ is sufficient for you. God continually falls short of your expectations. OK. As far as I can see you have made up your mind - your free will is in total control of the direction you have chosen and these little items you cast about on with ‘maybes’ and ‘could bes’ just seems to bait others.

Live like you believe - and, I hope we all follow this adage, too! May God have mercy on us all!

God bless

Which of the “proofs” that I rejected do you think are valid? If you think I am sticking with my position despite the evidence to the contrary, I’d like to know which pieces of evidence you think I incorrectly rejected. I do not think I will be convinced of Christianity, not because I refuse to accept the evidence, but because it is false. No matter how much I wanted to, I could not force myself to believe in God, or force myself to disbelieve in God, if the evidence contradicted that position. I am not trying to “bait others”, and I think I have been pretty upfront about my beliefs. I think that God almost certainly does not exist, but am willing to change my mind if I see reasons to think that he does.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hey atheist…

Perhaps we should deal with provable laws, as opposed to unprovable theories, such as the theory of evolution.

No offense, but this shows you don’t quite get what science is about. There is no such thing as proven scientific laws/theories. All our theories are based on observational data, and there is no way to prove with certainty that a given theory is true. They are all able to be revised if we ever get new data that contradicts them. All we have are theories that are extremely well supported by the evidence, such as the theory that the earth is round, and the theory of evolution. Are theories only considered proven to you if you agree with them?

The first law of thermodynamics may be stated as: “energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” This law does not rule out transformations of energy from one form to another, or even transformations of energy to matter, and the reverse, as according to Einstein’s E=mc2 equation. If it is true, it means that neither energy, nor matter, can be created from nothing. The second law of thermodynamics may be stated as: “In any transformation of energy from one form to another, ‘useful’ energy is lost.” The first law is sometimes stated as “you can’t get something for nothing.” The second law tells us that not only can’t we get something for nothing, but that we always lose in the process. We give up more than we get, energetically speaking.

There are a number of reasons why the argument from the First Law of Thermodynamics just doesn’t work. For one thing, if time itself began with the Big Bang as a lot of people think, then this was not a case of something being created from nothing (as there was never nothing). And even if there was some kind of time before the Big Bang, we do not know what natural laws would hold in this pre-Big Bang state. But this is of course merely one theory, and the universe (natural world) could also have been eternal.

Thermodynamics deals with the relationship between heat, energy, and work, as you know. The first and second laws of thermodynamics pose serious problems for evolution. The first law of thermodynamics, energy conservation, states that the amount of energy in the universe remains constant; no energy, is now being created or destroyed. This means that if the universe had a beginning, whatever process or act that brought the universe into existence is no longer in operation, and nothing within the universe could have brought the universe into existence, for no energy is being created now, and no energy was created in that first picosecond of the big bang.

Right, no energy was created in the young universe. Space, time, and energy all began at the same time under that theory.

In other words, the creation process is no longer operating today. Therefore, either the universe is eternal, with no explanation as to what caused this constant energy, or the universe was created in the past; no continuing creative process is still occurring, or did occur, once the big bang occurred.

The second law of thermodynamics is called entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy. Entropy is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, entropy increases.
Though the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, it changes form.

The second law states that when energy changes form it becomes less usable. Therefore, the amount of usable energy in the universe is running out.This means that the day will come when all the energy in the universe will have been used up. What then??? This will be the death of the universe. There must have been a time when all the energy of the universe was usable; this would be the beginning of the universe. In other words, since the universe is going to have an end, it is not eternal.

Under some versions of the Big Bang model, our universe will eventually reach heat death. However under other models, such as the Baum-Frampton model, matter could always have been in existence without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does rule out some old models of an infinite universe, but modern models are consistent with it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The burden of proof is on you to prove that the universe is eternal.

If I was claiming that the universe was eternal, then it certainly would be. That claim would be very unjustified given the evidence we currently have. The evidence is equally consistent with the possibility that the universe has a finite past as with the possibility that the universe had an infinite past.

If it is not eternal, then it must have had a beginning. The big bang model and the expansion of the universe also confirm the beginning of the universe. You said that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. That means that the universe was 1 billion years old 13 billion years ago. How old was the universe approximately 14 billion years ago? If the universe is eternal, then we shouldn’t be able to measure it. It should be immeasurable.

There are two definitions for the word ‘universe’ that are commonly used. Sometimes it is used to mean the entire natural world, and sometimes it is used to mean the observable universe. I usually make clear what I mean when I use the term. We have good evidence that the universe we now inhabit was incredibly small approximately 14 billion years ago. Whatever came before this point, we currently have no knowledge of. But this doesn’t mean that the entire natural world began at that point any more than a tribe whose oral tradition only went back 200 years would have evidence that the universe was only 200 years old.

If the first law is true, and has always been true, then the universe has always existed. If the second law is true, and has always been true, then if the universe has always existed, by this time, it would have achieved complete entropy. Obviously these statements cannot both true. If they were, the universe would be uninhabitable. How do you explain this? The only explanation is that these 2 laws of thermodynamics haven’t always been true. Why not? One possibility is that there was intervention by a supernatural God, creating something from nothing, in the initial creation of the universe. Another way to say this is: the universe had a absolute beginning; there was a time when it did not exist, at least in its present form, then God brought it into being. It is impossible to prove or disprove this, scientifically. However, it is the only solution to the dilemma, that I can see.

But there are many more possibilities, as I have explained.

Evolutionist and those who embrace it, such as yourself, face a dilemma. The first and second laws of thermodynamics (as opposed to theories) - together, declare that the universe had a beginning.

They do not declare anything of the sort. If you read the current physics literature, you’ll find articles talking about various past-eternal models of the universe and why they do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Here’s one such example: arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0612/0612243v1.pdf. I also do not know why you are referring to “evolutionists”. Evolution is a completely separate issue from cosmology.

The evolutionists cannot deny these laws, (as opposed to theories such as evolution) - for they are considered to be the most firmly established laws of modern science. Evolution runs counter to these two laws. When a scientific model contradicts a scientific law, as you have already pointed out, then the model should be abandoned. Since the first and second laws,of thermodynamics as opposed to theories, teach that the universe had a beginning, then something outside the universe must have caused the universe to come into existence, even if we cannot establish what this something was/is. For, from nothing, nothing comes. Therefore, the universe could not have evolved into existence out of nothing. I have heard all of the counter arguments; perhaps you will provide me with an original refutation.

As I explained before, there is no clear distinction between the use of the terms ‘theory’ and ‘law’. There are laws, such as Newton’s laws of motion which are violated in certain settings, and there are theories which have always held. We did not reject quantum theory merely because it went against Newton’s laws of motion. Take a look at this article for more details: physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law. However, as I have said before, neither evolution, nor a universe without God is incompatible with the laws of thermodynamics. If time started with the Big Bang, then there was never a point at which there was nothing.

Science confirms that all of the “constant energy” in the the “eternal” universe COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM WITHIN THE “ETERNAL” UNIVERSE, or from nothing. So, if the universe is a closed system, as science suggests, and there was no external power source that was responsible for the big bang, then where did all of this “constant energy” that is transforming into unusable energy, come from?

To my knowledge, science has not confirmed this. Perhaps you can explain to me where all the physicists who have published on this topic have erred. I mean no offense, but I trust their knowledge of physics over yours.

 

[twb1621]

I am not willing to devote a huge amount of time to something that I think would be a waste of time. And any religion can make a claim like the one you are making. Maybe you only dismiss Islam because you have not studied it enough.

Ah, the point I make is true and you do express it here. You show the selectivity I made observation of through your own words. “I do not wish to devote a huge amount of time on something I THINK (but have no support for) would be a waste of time.” With this approach in mind, everything else over the years you have had no knowledge in but merely THOUGHT would be of value you invested the time. IN the case of God, it is your lake of desire to learn the truth you select to avoid.

I agree. But I think it’s important to factor in the plausibility of a claim. I believe that your name is Tom because that is what it says on your posts, even though I have no good evidence that this is true. But if someone walked up to me on the street and said that Scientology is true, I would not merely take their word for it.

Again selective, as you believe my name is Tom because I say so but you do not believe because I say so it would be beneficial to your soul to learn with sincerity of interest whether God exists or not. I would hope you would not base a belief as you say, I agree, but that is not what I expect you to do in my suggestions either. I suggest finding out for yourself but in a truthful way of learning and see what you come up with. That is what you refuse to do.

I know scientific theories can later be proven wrong, but so can religious theories. Scientific theories have a far better track record of being right than do religious theories.

Show me was has been found wrong in any teaching of of the doctrines of the Catholic Church over 2000 years.

I see no reason to assume that this is true (at least for one who is not a Catholic). If the prophecy would be damaging, they might not release it.

Prophecies have been released regardless of the message including those that lacked no “harm” to come.

I find that those prophecies are usually very vague.

Vague because you do not have the knowledge or information to properly recognize anything

I’m curious what sources you’re using. I’ve done a bit of research into Hawking’s religious views, and it seems pretty clear that he is an atheist, or at the very least an agnostic.

Go to my web site and start with the link referring to the sciences.

I’m sure that if the God of Catholicism exists, pretty much everything I spend my time on would be less important than trying to find God. But that’s a big ‘if’. If leprechauns exist, then most of what I do would be a worse use of time than following rainbows in order to find pots of gold (I am just using this as an example, not saying it is exactly like Christianity). I am sure my research is far shallower than you think it should be. I have read a lot of arguments from top apologists and theologians, listened to many debates on the existence of God, and read a couple apologetics books. I just don’t see any good way of justifying reading shelves worth of books on a religion that seems extremely unlikely to be true (although I will read some that seem interesting). If anything, I have spent far more time researching Christianity than I have researching other religions. But I don’t think it would be worth it to spend the only life I think I’m ever going to have constantly researching one religion after another when I think they’re all wrong.

That in your case is your problem. You need to research it before you can study Christianity. You are merely reading other men’s opinions based on their research and education. You can’t accept that without starting from the beginning which is where I suggested you start in the first place.

 

[teak421]

My intellect says there is almost certainly no God. In order to believe in him, I would need some kind of evidence to make me think that he probably exists.

Mr. Evil…

Do you think at least the morality put forward from scripture and the Church are good for society?

• Michael

 

[teak421]

No offense, but this shows you don’t quite get what science is about. There is no such thing as proven scientific laws/theories. All our theories are based on observational data, and there is no way to prove with certainty that a given theory is true. They are all able to be revised if we ever get new data that contradicts them. All we have are theories that are extremely well supported by the evidence, such as the theory that the earth is round, and the theory of evolution. Are theories only considered proven to you if you agree with them?

There are a number of reasons why the argument from the First Law of Thermodynamics just doesn’t work. For one thing, if time itself began with the Big Bang as a lot of people think, then this was not a case of something being created from nothing (as there was never nothing). And even if there was some kind of time before the Big Bang, we do not know what natural laws would hold in this pre-Big Bang state. But this is of course merely one theory, and the universe (natural world) could also have been eternal.

Right, no energy was created in the young universe. Space, time, and energy all began at the same time under that theory.

Under some versions of the Big Bang model, our universe will eventually reach heat death. However under other models, such as the Baum-Frampton model, matter could always have been in existence without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does rule out some old models of an infinite universe, but modern models are consistent with it.

Can you point me to observable data for the theory of evolution? I’m not suggestion that you are putting forward that doctrine here, but I really am interested. BUT, on the whole, I could care less HOW God created Man, I just know that he created Man. That’s his business and its our business to discover.

• Michael